Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, for every claim or statement you make, please reference in your VB model the source code filename, URL, line number and method/function name that implements and so demonstrates that claim.

If no such citation is available, please note that with pending and that way your grand claims about the way things are can more easily be skipped (er, got back to later I mean).

Allow me to demonstrate:

Quote

Gary:This model pending ending up being normally unpredictable like this is one of the things that lets you know it's not Artificial Intelligence which is great at cleaning floors pending and dancing at the push of a button pending but it's not the real thing pending where there is very visibly a mind of its ownpending that inherently tries to control all it can pending. This will not obey commandspending, unless it wants topending.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

So, again, you took the already existing model and inserted the word "intelligence" for no apparent reason other than it's important to you.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is? Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

More ID prevarication. "There is a formula for measuring FIASCO (or whatever). We know how to do it and we can use it any time we like."

But no-one has ever actually done it.

You can be the first, Gary.

But I'm betting you won't.

You won't use your notion to model the development of a blastula, the tropic behaviour of a flatworm, or the ptyalin/starch reaction. If you do, your explanation will be indistinguishable from ordinary genetics/physiology/organic chemistry models.

The word "intelligence" is just the bacon bits sprinkled over your word salad.

"There is no there there."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

So, again, you took the already existing model and inserted the word "intelligence" for no apparent reason other than it's important to you.

For systems biology it is a standard format for modeling anything in biology. Where the system is intelligent it is obvious that they are, instead of not sure because you do not begin with a standard format that easily allows such determinations to be made. Where the is a multicellular brain, same thing models that, and is from there just a matter of how many subsystems and neurons in the circuit(s) but same thing.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

That is what a routine chemotaxis model already is. Where checked with theory there should be no problem finding how their chemotaxis algorithm meets the four requirements, in code. It's another case of just needing to know what you are looking for, then you find it already there, all over the place. Or end up coding one by accident, but didn't know, until I explained what it is.

So, again, you took the already existing model and inserted the word "intelligence" for no apparent reason other than it's important to you.

For systems biology it is a standard format for modeling anything in biology. Where the system is intelligent it is obvious that they are, instead of not sure because you do not begin with a standard format that easily allows such determinations to be made. Where the is a multicellular brain, same thing models that, and is from there just a matter of how many subsystems and neurons in the circuit(s) but same thing.

Bingo.

So it all reduces to "looks intelligent to me".

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is? Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

Regardless of kind of intelligence, in this theory there is a line chart to show vital stats of the algorithm, along with representative circuit which can be drawn to help show how well it is working. That is all it needs.

I doubt you will find a comparable system anywhere else. This is not required in any other theory, where here it is really only a matter of simply showing the primary variables and circuit of the model on the screen.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence." Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system. BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system. Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is? Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

Regardless of kind of intelligence, in this theory there is a line chart to show vital stats of the algorithm, along with representative circuit which can be drawn to help show how well it is working. That is all it needs.

I doubt you will find a comparable system anywhere else. This is not required in any other theory, where here it is really only a matter of simply showing the primary variables and circuit of the model on the screen.

This is not a rigorously defined and tested measurement system. There is no data. Measurement units have not been defined. There are other significant problems, but unless you solve those two, you've created an ugly mess that's supposed to represent a "theory."

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2. Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

This is not a rigorously defined and tested measurement system. There is no data. Measurement units have not been defined. There are other significant problems, but unless you solve those two, you've created an ugly mess that's supposed to represent a "theory."

Translation:If you present a rigorously defined and tested measurement system all carefully explained in 40+ pages of text then you must be accused of the opposite being true.If you present a screen with line graph and circuit full of data then they must state "There is no data." If measurement units are always for line chart 0-3 tall since confidence 3 is max and all else is there to know what you are seeing then "Measurement units have not been defined."If that is not enough insult to injury then they give a pompous lecture as though they know what is going on, while they express their deep denial by so clearly missing the obvious. It's an excellent lesson in how to become totally scientifically dysfunction. Show them a line chart, they see no data, label them brilliant!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

1) Why do you keep posting that PSC badge in your signature in every forum you inhabit? 1b) Do you believe it helps or hinders your mission?

2) Is there anyone on the planet Earth besides yourself using your 'theory' in any way, shape or form?

3) How many more forums do you think you will have to visit after this one before it sinks in that nobody understands a word you are saying?

4) How many more times do you need to be reminded what a scientific theory is before it sinks in?

5) How many more times do you need to be asked what your theory explains or predicts before it sinks in that whatever you claim to be doing - it isn't science.

1, the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that. And 1b it's my mission to make sure they are proudly represented and credited not sidelined in a forum where some will always instead demand respect of some pompous tribunal, which even needs to judge theory with recent controversial philosophy to get the answer they want.

2 only helps show how out of touch with the rest of the planet your opinion is, which leads to 3,4,5 not being worth answering. Reality is, that programmers, school board members, artists, politicians and others found this theory useful for answering questions they had in regards to the scientific merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design and what a theory is and is not. I already explained how in Kansas the US laws and ethics combines to add an unresolved public hearing requiring a number of years after that to even begin to resolve, and all that takes the outcome of this theory very seriously. It's a learning thing, at the citizenry level, that the law of the land wants to happen too. Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud. So for whatever it's worth, here again is the link to what is to be fairly judged to be science or not:

The videos I link to can make a music teacher proud. The theory's art/music model already shows US culture, at its best. And I know you can't beat that with your paradigm either. Really need a theory that is already stuck in a culture war, where in a sense all that need be easily changed is its outcome, by not over-reacting, and other simple basics which all help change the way things go.

What the hell is going on with your answer #1? Does that actually mean anything?

Why are you so stupid? This is what I'm most interested in now. It's apparent that you are stupid, but why could be fascinating.

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2. Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

It's like being pregnant, you are or are not. There is no resolution, all four requirements are either met are they are not, and where they are it starts self-learning then it's soon growing all over the (real or virtual) planet. You know that moment happened, in part from what shortly happens after it does. Then know why I mention that intelligence of any kind deserves respecting because of its inherent need to control all it can, and where possible even you and your ecosystem.

I have programmed so many of these models I lost count way before the first few hundred. What you see is what is needed to right away know whether it is intelligent or not, or whatever.

There are no "unreliable results" that need anything controlled for them, it's just a matter of being happy with the numbers and such that you end up with to compare with. If you must ask generalizations which confuse molecular and cellular intelligence then you will get confused answers, but that's not the theory's fault that's yours for expecting specific answers to ambiguous questions.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

look very, very carefully at your very pretty picture. You see that graph in the lower left corner?

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR A WEEK NOW.

Until you actually, you know, TELL US what the lines are and what the X and Y axes are, then your very, very pretty picture is utterly and completely useless.

It doesn't mean anything. It's the squiggles drawn by a three-year-old with a hand full of color pencils. Those lines could represent the price of tea in china over the last 35,000 decades in Megagrams of tea and 1/1000s of the value of 1 troy ounce of gold (as listed on the US stock exchange on September 7, 1997). We don't know.

It's a very pretty picture, but it is utterly useless. So quit trying to baffle us with bullshit and actually explain what you are doing, why you are doing (code and data, not "because I think molecules are intelligent and want to prove it"), the evidence that makes your reasons valid, and the actual results and the implications for your notions. And do so, using defined words and the actual current knowledge of the universe, not what you think the current knowledge of the universe is.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

He's saying the more it gets to eat, the more "confident" the movement. "The food is over here."

It's just a rehash of Conway's Life.

Ho hum.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale? What unit is shared by those two things?

The stomach system varies from 0 to full that can be considered 3. It's possible to get all fancy or smooth out the line but what I show is all you need. It's supposed to be a minimal code system. This helps keep it simple, is easy to add to.

When you have the algorithm for the first time producing intelligence, you know it. Instead of more flat-line looking confidences including from zombie-like tropism that at first appears intelligent (but is not) the confidence curves go up exponentially with successful memories being stored in memory, it literally "comes to life" for you. But would have had to experience it, to really know what I'm talking about. Even where it just races around the screen once it's intelligent it's like a whole other thing you are seeing on the screen, that when brought into our reality has to be respected because of what it then is, highly controlling intelligence.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

"the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that."

Could I have this translated into syntactically correct English, please? Perhaps a complete thought will then emerge.

--------------DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2. Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

It's like being pregnant, you are or are not. There is no resolution, all four requirements are either met are they are not, and where they are it starts self-learning then it's soon growing all over the (real or virtual) planet.

Gary, here's what you said, with emphasis added:

Quote

As long as they [cloned bacteria] were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

You say that cellular intelligence develops during its lifetime and then you say, wrt your measurement system, "It has no resolution." The verb "to develop" connotes incremental augmentation or progression. How can you possibly know anything about the development of "cellular intelligence" without being able to discern incremental stages of development?

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale? What unit is shared by those two things?

The stomach system varies from 0 to full that can be considered 3. It's possible to get all fancy or smooth out the line but what I show is all you need. It's supposed to be a minimal code system. This helps keep it simple, is easy to add to.

When you have the algorithm for the first time producing intelligence, you know it. Instead of more flat-line looking confidences including from zombie-like tropism that at first appears intelligent (but is not) the confidence curves go up exponentially with successful memories being stored in memory, it literally "comes to life" for you. But would have had to experience it, to really know what I'm talking about. Even where it just races around the screen once it's intelligent it's like a whole other thing you are seeing on the screen, that when brought into our reality has to be respected because of what it then is, highly controlling intelligence.

I'm interpreting these graphs as Gary's Dunning-Kruger score over the last ten years. In the absence of axes, it's as valid as anything else.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale?

And on the memory line, that is also best shown 0 to total memories that can be stored in RAM. As long as it is not perfectly flat-lined (not going up a single pixel and screen says 0 or stays 1 total memories) it's doing OK there. Where it is only going up a few pixels it likely needs optimization, such as instead of using all bits of a sensor in addressing sum it down to two bits of state changes with comparator for signal increase or decrease. It then requires less memory array space to store sense of signal rise or fall. Line chart would show better optimization by being more than a few pixels over the same amount of time. But that did not change how intelligent it is. It still senses signal rise and fall through a comparator, instead of whether sensor went from 51-52 or 52-51 which takes more bits to do the same. It's normal to not need anywhere near as much RAM as the program has to dimension to account for all unique addressing instances, so you don't want to see it quickly rising since in a model like this that indicates a serious programming bug. It's just as well to simply draw the memory line line this, or get the exact number from off the screen after so many cycles of running time, then repeat to find whether memory usage improved a small amount or not. Where optimization did not at all change its intelligence circuit/structure it lives the exact same lifetime all over again, making it easy to know nothing at all changed from it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages.

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Now, the question on everyone's mind: can you come up with a prediction that tests your "theory"?

How many times am I going to have to ask you for one before you at least attempt to come up with one?

Quote

You don't have a theory if nowhere within it can you identify an individual hypotheses that can be successfully tested.

Quote

No. Stupidly, iredeemably, hilariously wrong......This is not rocket science. If you would fucking get over your own ego, and realize there are things you do not know that others do know, you could FUCKING LEARN SOMETHING.

Quote

It doesn't make any, does it, Gary? Your fucking halfwitted, brain-damaged joke of a "theory" makes NO TESTABLE PREDICTIONS.

Quote

Gary, are you RETARDED? That is the OPPOSITE of what I am arguing! You CANNOT be this stupid!

Quote

Do you even fucking SPEAK ENGLISH, GARY?!

Quote

What fucking predictions does your fucking idiot slack-brained abortion of a "theory" make?

Quote

This is just sad at this point.

Quote

Gary. English is not your native tongue, is it? You don't really actually understand English, do you?

Quote

Listen, moron: your "theory" isn't EVEN a hypothesis. Or, more precisely, as a "hypothesis" it is WORTHLESS. As in, USELESS.

Why?

Because it's not fucking TESTABLE. It makes no testable predictions. You have no way of telling if it is right or if it is wrong. I have been telling you this virtually since the beginning of this thread.

What is really amazing, though, is that all this time, through almost a hundred pages of this thread, you had, and still have, NO IDEA WHAT A FREAKING PREDICTION IS.